Literature review

Analysis of Situational Leadership Theory

The situational theory of leadership is becoming increasingly popular in the
context of modern organizational leadership. This is evident from the manner in
which it is surfacing in academic literature such as books, journals and research
reports. A leadership style refers to the pattern of behavior; including both action
and words as exhibited by a leader or as perceived by followers. Situational
leadership revolves around job-related maturity. According to Mark, et al (2009)
job maturity refers to an individual's ability in performing a job and this is a key
factor determining a leader's behavior. The situational leadership model puts it
that effective leadership is dependent on both the acts of management and
leadership and that these enhance an organization's match to current global
trends. The model emerged from the realization and understanding that not all
individuals within a group or community being led compare in terms of maturity
level and that the need for a leadership style differ with situations. Thus the
model is based on situational variables as it relies on day-to-day perceptions of a
leader as well as the environmental observations rather than research data.
Current research shows that effectiveness in the light of this model involves a
leader's assessment of the development level (maturity) of their followers as well
as the situation at hand to adjust their leadership approach accordingly (Norris &
Vecchio, 2000; GEN Dennis, 1999). Situational leadership entails first
understanding one's predominant leadership approach and the level of the
follower's development process. Situational leadership is particularly becoming
an effective strategy among Army leaders given the current rates of
technological advancement and combat techniques. Situational leadership is
thus very vital in challenging the ambiguous and complex nature of the modern
military environment.

Background of the Situational Leadership Model

The situational leadership theory was developed by Hersey and Blanchard in the
1960s basing on Reddin's 3-D framework of leadership (Hersey & Blanchard,
1996). The developmental process of the model focused on three key categories:
consideration; initiation of structure; and leader behavior. In situational
leadership, the subordinates' job-relevant maturity (both psychological and job
maturity) is the primary situational factor determining a leader's behavior.
Maturity is regarded to be a product of the education level and/ or experience.
Psychological maturity is an important aspect of job maturity and it reflects a
person's state of motivation, that is, their confidence and self-esteem levels;
which are highly influenced by ethical practices in a firm. Hersey and Blanchard
identified that physiological maturity is associated with an individual's
orientation towards achievement as well as the ability and willingness to assume
responsibility. Hersey and Blanchard thus concluded that performance is
basically a "behavioral manifestation of job relevant maturity" (Hersey &
Blanchard, 1996). Proponents of this model hold the notion that each situation
demands a different leadership style and thus the best course of action is

dependent on the situation at hand, that is, effectiveness in leadership is

dependent on the adaptability to adapt to situations.

It is also imperative to note that the leader-follower relationship determines the

outcome of any particular task. Lee-Kelley (2002) points out that situational
leadership is based on both versatility and effectiveness. Four leadership
approaches apply under the situational leadership model and are dependent on
followers' job-related maturity. The major notion under this model is that
flexibility and adaptability determine which of the diverse styles would apply in
the context of varied situations, followers or tasks.

The Four Leadership Approaches/Styles Applied in Situational Leadership

S1: Directing (high task, low relationship behavior)
Leaders take the responsibility of determining the roles and tasks for their
followers. They thus are involved in close supervision of the follower activities as
well as taking and announcing all the decisions. In this regard, the leaders are
more concerned with the challenge of meeting goals and accomplishing tasks
than on building strong relationships with their subordinates (Norris & Vecchio,
2000). Communication in this style is usually one way since leadership
autocratically categorizes employee's duties.

S2: Coaching (high task, high relationship behavior)

Although the leader has the power of making decisions, he/she usually involves
the suggestions of the followers while maintaining a good relationship with them.
Although communication is two-way, final decisions on ideas are usually made by
the leader rather than their authors (Mark, et al. 2009). Leaders are thus focused
on selling their ideas to the followers to have them understand the importance of
their tasks and the various organizational processes.

S3: Participative (high relationships, low task behavior)

This style is usually very motivating to subordinates as it involves a shared
decision making process and a two-way communication channel (Hersey &
Blanchard, 1996). Followers are usually included in all job-related duties as well
as in determining how tasks and responsibilities are to be accomplished. The
leader often relies on the followers' contribution in organizing the day-to-day
responsibilities such as tasks and processes allocation.

S4: Delegating (low relationship, high task behavior)

In certain situations, leaders are compelled to entrust their followers with much
of the decision making process. The leader's task thus entails monitoring
progress although he/she is not extensively involved in the process of making
decisions. However, the leader is more focused on problem solving and taking

decisions but grants the followers the authority to determine the final decision.
Followers decide when it is appropriate to involve the leader.

There are four major follower maturity levels that determine the necessity for a
leadership style (Hersey & Blanchard, 1996).

Follower Development Process/Maturity Levels

The first maturity level (M1) encompasses followers who usually have no
confidence, knowledge or skills necessary for them to work independently. Such
individual's usually require supervision and direction before they can be
entrusted with tasks. In such a situation, effective leadership would entail
applying the directing approach of leadership (Peter, et al. 2008). The second
level (M2) of maturity involves followers who generally have the will to do a task
but they lack the capacity to do so independently. This means that leading such
a group would necessitate that the leader employ an approach that can coach
the followers at their duties. The third maturity level (M3) includes individuals
who are usually highly experienced and can attend to the task in question
satisfactorily. Participative leadership is best suited to lead such followers.
However, these followers lack the confidence to assume sole responsibility of
seeing a task to accomplishment. The fourth maturity level (M4) includes those
individuals who are not only experienced but are also confident and able to take
on the task (Mark, et al. 2009; Fernandez & Vecchio, 1997). They are not only
willing and able but are also confident that they can successfully fulfill
accomplishments independently. In the event of M4, leaders usually assume the
delegating leadership style.

This essay is an example of a student's work

Disclaimer
This essay has been submitted to us by a student. This is not an example of the
work written by our professional essay writers.

Who wrote this essay Request removal Example Essays

It is essential to note that differentiated leadership is only possible under the

situational leadership approach since different followers with varying levels of
needs, abilities and maturity levels are led. The situational model is based on the
perception that real leadership revolves around people management in a manner
that is fair for the sake of being mutually rewarding as well as providing
productive objectives; which are usually free of any manipulation. According to
Hersey and Blanchard, the process of controlling, influencing and motivating
followers towards attainment of stated accomplishments relies on three key
leadership skills: (i) prediction of future behavior; (ii) understanding the behavior
of the past; and (iii) the changing, controlling as well directing behaviors (Lee-

Kelley 2002). In this regard, research shows that effective situational leaders are
usually engaged in a number of behavioral manifestations: relationship and task
behaviors, which are important in driving creativity and innovation among
followers.

Applying Situational Leadership in the Military Services

Overview
The increasingly complex military environment demands for an effective
approach to leadership, one that is adaptive to the different followers' situations.
The US Army Field Manual (FM) 22-100 emphasizes on the ability of any military
leader to adjust to the particular situation or individuals being led (US Army Field
Manual (FM) 22-100, 1999). Use of the model is evident among successful
military leaders. Military leaders such as combat leaders are usually not confined
to any one leadership style in any given situation, not with the dramatically
changing nature of the battle field now and in the future. It is increasingly
becoming mandatory that military leaders be adaptive (flexible) enough to
engage styles that will enhance the success of the soldiers. Situational
leadership in military would be important especially in enabling military leaders
to take advantage of techniques from the four styles of situational leadership for
the sake of motivating soldiers towards accomplishing missions successfully.
Ability to make use of cultural awareness, sound judgment, self control, and
intelligence is the key to effective situational leadership.

As a Military Leader
According to Lau (1998), the concept of situational leadership became of
particular importance in the military following the formation of the continental
army. It is also based on the recent view that control, teamwork, discipline, and
organization are deficient within the forces (GEN Dennis, 1999). In this regard,
military psychology has been developing situational leadership frameworks for
the last 100 years to promote effective military behavior based on the view that
particular behavior among military individuals would inevitably facilitate better
outcomes. While using this model, it is necessary to make use of the studies and
facts about military figures and units encountered during my service to avoid
repetition of past mistakes over an over. This way, one would be able to learn
from these past histories and focus on key concerns that address soldiers
simultaneously in regards to mission accomplishment tasks. This would help in
focusing on the task and social aspects of duty as one adapts his/her leadership
style to match followers' needs and abilities. Studies reveal that this training has
had more emphasis on the managerial training rather than the tactical
approaches (COL Kent & LTC David, 2001); this would be a challenge and an
opportunity to apply the various leadership approaches within the constraints of
the situational model of leadership to get the best from the soldiers. Studies
have shown that difficulties associated with compromises on the gratification
level, solution seeking and perfectness due to autocratic rules can be effectively
solved through the situational leadership approach, whereby combat leaders
take advantage of the opportunity for adjusting communication flow through

adapting to leadership styles that are situationally appropriate (GEN Dennis,

1999).

Military leadership tasks revolve around being both a social specialist and a task
specialist, that is, ones primary goal is to accomplish the group's main challenge
of defeating enemies in combat. Such a role requires being more informed,
active and intelligent than the followers. As a social specialist, one's challenge
would encompass building and maintaining a close relationship with the group,
keeping the group together, and providing morale (Peter, et al. 2008). As a
military leader, being able to situationally adapt to the social needs of the
followers would help in mitigating issues concerned with low morale such as
desertion, crime, malingering and absenteeism. Thus, the social specialist role
helps one to be able to improve a team's cohesiveness. An ideal military,
situational-based leader is one who is able to excellently and concurrently apply
both the task of a specialist and an equal competency as a social leader (COL
Kent & LTC David, 2001). Social situational adaptability is especially important for
effective and successful leadership among leaders at the lower levels than it is
for the higher levels. It is imperative that one be conversant with the dynamics
of the rules in the army to achieve untried solutions and meet challenges with
this model.

For effectiveness, one has to continuously look for situations in which they can
apply new alternatives. More particularly lower ranks require that one be less
sensitive on rank differences and have more foresight and initiative regarding
what is right or who is right; this is an example of ideal situational adaptive
ability in which they would be dependent on information to tackle challenges
(Lau, 1998). Still on situations, using technical expertise while at the same time
focusing on the group's cohesiveness, especially because of the stressing nature
of the military environment, would be the perfect thing to do. This implies that
ones adaptability and flexibility has to be impressive as military work usually
involves surprises which would necessitate this. Therefore, a flexible leadership
model such as situational leadership is most applicable in the military situation
due to the necessity to successfully handle unanticipated events.

Being an adaptive leader is paramount to conceive the importance of creating an

environment for enabling followers as well as junior leaders to expand their
rational risk-taking. It enables them to enhance their development, training and
coaching levels (Lee-Kelley 2002; Lau, 1998). This is particularly so in the face of
the increasing sophistication of the hardware, techniques and tactics applied in
the military today. Situational approach in military leadership involves training
the subordinate officers to tackle more complicated tasks with use of fewer
resources. John Blair and James Hunt describe the various elements that
influence the situational approach of leadership within the military. They sought
to enhance the understanding of the major characteristics defining leadership in
future battle fields as well as the extent of their influence on commanders,
soldiers and the army in general (COL Kent & LTC David, 2001). James and John
emphasize on the organizational and environmental factors (macrocontigency

factors) and the microcontigency factors encompassing the situational factors

that are particular to tasks, individuals or unit.

Most current military services derive from the situational leadership model.
Situation leadership training in the military began as early as the 1970s but only
limited studies have been on the same in the military context. Recent research
on the air assault battalion of US National Army Guard shows that this model
works effectively within the military (Mark, et al. 2009). A military leaders' major
accomplishment under this model would be to facilitate the development of the
job-related maturity of the soldiers.

According to the guidelines outlined in FM 22100, the effectiveness of a combat

leader relies on the ability to demonstrate flexibility in terms of the leadership
approach while leading other soldiers (Lau, 1998). This is because the military is
characterized by different behaviors with some responding best to suggestions,
coaxing, gentle prodding or directions. An example of one approach involves
applying the S2 (coaching) style for the subordinates' in maturity level 3 to
improve their motivation, commitment, and ownership of decisions. Thus, being
situational implies that one has the ability to shift from using an overly directive
approach to suing one that allows the subordinates to be self sufficient; this is
the basis for leadership and subordinate development in the army. FM 22100
indicates that the most important competency of any military leader is being
able to identify the needs of the subordinates as well as their abilities so as to
figure out the best approach to bring out their best (US Army Field Manual (FM)
22-100, 1999). Effectiveness and success is thus enhanced by the ability to use a
combination of the features of all the four situational leadership styles to fit with
individuals, place and task involved; since it is usually difficult to lead in battle
fields that require different techniques while based on a single approach. Studies
in military leadership have identified that unit outcomes are improved by
integration of transactional and transformational competencies into the various
situational leadership approaches (GEN Dennis, 1999).

Shortcomings of the Situational Leadership Model

Studies by the Air University Leadership and Management Program Advisory
Group identified that the situational leadership model has some limitations that
are worth noting (COL Kent & LTC David, 2001). While the model is effective in
outlining the appropriate style of leadership based on job-maturity it fails to take
care of other important considerations within the military. For instance, the
model does not address the extent to which leadership is practiced, the different
styles essential in the event of specific combat action, staff versus operations
leadership or the various styles that may be appropriate in the vent of combined,
joint, or even service leadership. This is because leaders may not be able to
identify situations where the various leadership styles apply more appropriately
or that they lack the capacity or expertise to employ the appropriate behaviors
whenever the telling or the directing styles are most appropriate. It is difficult to
assess the readiness level of the followers since this model involves a
multifaceted approach (Fernandez & Vecchio, 1997).

Conclusion
The situational leadership theory is becoming increasingly popular in modern
organizational leadership especially in the military set up. Leadership is an
important aspect of combat power and thus the reason for situational model
popularity. The most important task in combat situational leadership is being
able to motivate the soldiers through morale factors enhanced by unit cohesion.
A leader's adaptability is the key necessity for the success of the situational
leadership model. Communication is one way to improve task motivation and
leadership outcome in the context of this model. Communication is also two in an
effort to improve morale and participation. However, the S1 and S4 styles usually
involve more situational concerns than just the subordinate's readiness. The
appropriateness of a leadership style changes with change in the leadership
environment. The model emphasizes on using more than one style of leadership
especially when developing followers. According to this model, there is a no best
leadership style since the key determinants of leadership is the adaptation to the
job maturity and the skill level of the subordinates. As proven Situational
leadership is thus very vital in challenging the ambiguous and complex nature of
the modern military environment.

Read more: http://www.ukessays.com/essays/management/analysis-ofsituational-leadership-theory-management-essay.php#ixzz3ZH10scLv